Breaking News: Impressionism wasn’t really Impressionism at all! It was early environmental warriors chronicling the damage to our environment!

This article has me scratching my head. It’s clear they are pushing an agenda with the comment “With megacities such as Beijing and New Delhi experiencing levels of air pollution similar to those of 19th-century London,” but that’s fine, no issue, everyone has an agenda.

The last sentence, though….trying to redefine Impressionism (very crudely and inadequately btw), I do take issue with.

“Turner and Monet likely intended to represent environmental change.” 🤔

Maybe there wasn’t as much air pollution in the Hudson River Valley? Article isn’t saying that they set out to document air pollution, but rather when those painters looked out the window, what they saw was a deeply hazy landscape, and that influenced their paintings.

Sad to say, omission was likely due to it’s irrelevance to the article’s agenda.

So had the people thought

[deleted]

That's still a lot of time.

You have the rebellion itself, but that's over by the mid 1780s. There's definitely still a lot of tension though and these come to a climax in 1812. This is because just because the war ended it doesn't mean all the involvement did, and all the money and investments went away. There's still a vested interest.

The Monroe Doctrine in the 1820s is the official notice of "stay away" I think this is the point to draw the line.

Now think about what happens afterwards in both countries. Think about what the Monroe Doctrine represents. It's not "America protecting its allies in the continent" it's "America claiming these territories as their own sphere of influence" England still has the other half of the world to push its own imperialist tendencies. We're no longer colonising, but we're still reaping the benefits out of every place we can find and bringing them home.

And sure, there are some disputes after this, but overall they're not really the end of days type stuff. It's a lot of chest bumping more than sword shaking. Even with the Second US Rebellion in the 1860s the British considered getting involved just to tip the scales a bit in their favour, but overall realised that diplomacy would win the day, and it was better to just sit back and wait and act accordingly afterwards.

This sparked a more open and diplomatic approach which had already been growing. Better to work things out, even we have to act a bit tough for votes, than have young people go die fighting each other. Especially as both were now monumental powers. It's easier to ally with them and use each others strengths and say "hey, look, we scuffled, but we're both from the same cloth" by this point people that fought in the American rebellion or the war of 1812 are no longer alive, or certainly not the majority of the population, there's not that same animosity. "You scratch my back, and help secure trade in the region, which we'll help make you a part of, I scratch your back and I help ensure a peaceful Europe beneficial to you"

So when WWI approaches, the US realised how important it was to keep the Brits as an ally, and to keep them powerful, if it meant a safer Atlantic for their own interest, especially against growing nationalist groups (in particular Germany). The actions of WWI consolidated the US's thoughts on Germany and similar groups, and shone the importants of an ally in Britain. After the war they had to work together to try and rebuild, strengthening them more and realising again the need for continued cooperation, which would continue to prove itself useful.

In short: It's easy to look back at big events of centuries and go "why aren't they hating each other?" but in reality, people care more about what's happening NOW than what happened before they were born. Yes, there are certainly groups which harbour some amazingly longstanding feuds, but even a lot of those still have some relatively diplomatic relationships. A lot can happen in a few generations.

Indeed it took a good deal less than a century: only a decade after the 1812 war London was proposing a joint declaration against Europe's monarchies seizing territory in the Americas; Monroe chose to go it alone, but Britain backed the policy despite implicitly being among those being warned off. Trade shows a still faster recovery in the 1780s and 1810s: within a few years of each war you'd think nothing had happened.

Besides the obvious affinities between their ruling elites, part of the explanation is that with the US renouncing any involvement in Europe's affairs and preoccupied with westward expansion across the North American continent, there was for a century little basis for friction once British rue was gone, apart from the 1840s border dispute, Civil War complications and the brief Venezuela flurry. The two powers shared a distaste for European rivals' imperial designs, Washington wanting to keep Europe "over there" while London prized commercial access to non-European lands, a growing US priority too by mid-century: nor until the 1940s did the US show any inclination to assume the global financial leadership claimed by Britain.

It was ultimately a marriage of convenience, based in the first century on broadly compatible strategic and commercial perspectives, and in the second on waning British capacity to go it alone as others challenged its industrial lead and - unthinkably - its naval supremacy. Once Britain abandoned any fantasies of reconquering its lost North American colonies and US hotheads were talked out seizing Canada, there was little to do but make the best of it.

Tree hugging artsy greenies trying to ruin the weekend!

What was the traditional clothing pre the kilt? I’ve always wondered why Ireland never really adopted the kilt.

What's the primary sources for the 5 good emperors I just finished sutonius and wanted to continue reading primary sources about the roman empire. Thanks

Tbh, Londoners during the Industrial Revolution probably thought it was just foggy too

[removed]

Thanks for replying.

​

Yeh, skipping to the good stuff makes sense. Just extra dolares n space for stuff I'm not gonna use.

​

I actually can't read tablets, hurts my eyes (even w those gunnar pc glassses), + physical space is limited.

​

Was hyped to find those "BASIC ART" Taschen books. They really are amazing quality and short, and give you a great pov. Way better writing than I expected, and thoughtful analysis, so wudd if it's not every single painting, u kno.

​

A past 100yrs history version of that would be ideal.

​

yurr academic/researched work is necessary, but I find a lot of academic writing fails at writing. Exceptions being ppl like Baptist and CLR James, Thiong'o, sometimes Zinn.

Mills is the worst. Literally repeats an obvious idea for 10 pages at a time, with little cohesion.

S'like, Dude, Mills, give it a couple more passes before publishing, lol.

I feel like, especially, anything history-inclined, you should always use examples and case studies. But he writes oceans of generalities, supported in footnotes/bibliographies, vs. Baptist's ability to novelize threads from various sources (being a competent enough writer).

So you get the themes from slave narratives, plantation investor's deals w lawmakers, accountant records/audits, and political movements, banker policy, all with real-world examples, with the econ ethnic stakes made pretty clear. (and still all the academic footnotes etc)

Vs. the more cooped-up, badwriter academic vibes, where it's like allergic to specific, lived experience examples.

anyway....

Pardon my frivolous ranting, how often does one get to talk about books nahdaze.

When Japan invaded the Philippines, The Philippines was a US Colony, with its own commonwealth government. Upon Japanese Occupation however, the Commonwealth Government of the Philippines still operates albeit in exile on US shores. Afterwards, the US and the allied forces helped take back the Philippines from Japan, occupying it for another year before granting full independence to the country for good. So would it be correct to assume that the Philippines was under both the Japanese and America at the same time?? (even if the Americans weren't actively governing the Philippines during the Japanese occupation)

There's a good reason most of those are in the 400+ page range.

And keep in mind that many of them are proper academic works, so they'll include a lot of pages on notes, bibliographies, historiography, abbreviations, and other things you can just skip over. In fact, if you're only interested in a certain set of years you can just skip the chapters that cover things before them, but you're getting a better overall product.

As for space, most books can now be found in digital format, but a 500 page book isn't as thick as you might think.

>For no reason

Braveheart?

Looking for recommendations for a brief overview of regional histories. Timeline is more contemporary. Ideally Around 100 years ago to 1960s, (decoloniz era), bleeding into the present is fine.

​

Particularly focusing on India, China, Brazil, and the Middle East.

​

To clarify, instead of reading a heavy time commitment Art History Monograph, like 300-400 page "Caravaggio - Complete works,"

(example: https://www.amazon.com/Caravaggio-Complete-Works-Sebastian-Sch%C3%BCtze/dp/3836555816/ref=sr_1_fkmr1_1?crid=RFMAP68B3T7S&keywords=caravaggio+schultz+sebastian&qid=1679977268&sprefix=caravaggio+schultz+sebatian%2Caps%2C77&sr=8-1-fkmr1&ufe=app_do%3Aamzn1.fos.006c50ae-5d4c-4777-9bc0-4513d670b6bc )

I'm looking more for the Taschen "Basic Art" series, abbreviated version. (100pages)

(example: https://www.amazon.com/Degas-Basic-Art-Bernd-Growe/dp/3836532719/ref=sr_1_1?crid=3B3UP3FXAF1VX&keywords=degas+taschen&qid=1679977415&sprefix=degas+tashen%2Caps%2C69&sr=8-1 )

...Where it's still high quality and worth reading, but not spelling out every minute genealogy and every possible pov (art technique, history, ideological, etc)

​

Googling around, I found some of these:

​

Cambridge Concise History of India (too long, 400 pages)https://www.amazon.com/dp/110767218X/?coliid=I1R9D0SP60JC91&colid=3RRM95BN0YKZU&psc=1&ref_=lv_ov_lig_dp_it

​

Robert's Concise History of China (too long, 368 pages)

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0674000757/?coliid=I2PG9V6MDCKRHB&colid=3RRM95BN0YKZU&psc=1&ref_=lv_ov_lig_dp_it

​

​

Cambridge Concise History of Brazil (too long at almost 500 pages)

https://www.amazon.com/dp/1107635241/?coliid=I7HK9757TQF9S&colid=3RRM95BN0YKZU&psc=1&ref_=lv_ov_lig_dp_it

​

Al-Marashi's Concise History of Middle East (too long, at 500+ pages)

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0813350913/?coliid=I2V15HRD608E4W&colid=3RRM95BN0YKZU&psc=1&ref_=lv_ov_lig_dp_it

​

​

For what it's worth, I'm most interested in Econ History, but ideally a competent/not overly academic writing style.

​

History books I like:

CLR James - Black Jacobins

Thiong’o – Decolonising The Mind

Baptist - Half Has Never Been Told

Mills - Power Elite (*he sucks at writing though)

Zinn - People's History of USA

Grant - Natural Mystics: Marley, Tosh, & Wailer

Steel - Vive La Revolution

B. Ogot - Zamani - Survey of E. African History

Ntarangwi - East African Hip Hop

​

Periodicals:

The Economist

Transition (Duke Uni Press)

​

​

Have some understanding of the India / Brazil / China / MidEast regions, reading Economist pieces here & there for past 10 years, but wanted to just have a little more overall continuity.

​

Def don't want to pay for 500 pages that the cover dawn of time to now, just last 100 years or so, even last 50 years.

Def don't want a large textbook i got no space for.

100-200 page paperback is ideal.

​

cheers,

one thing i really couldn't rap my head around was how quickly USA and Britain became close buddies after the revolutionary war, basically almost less than a century they were forming repairing pacts with each other like working together against the spanish, and then after that working together to form the Japan/china they wanted, and then after that literally fighting side by side in the 2 world wars. It's such a short list because it's barely 2 centuries since the revolution war. and now Britain and the USA are the closest of friends/allies/trade partners.

im probably leaving a lot out but i'd like to know ur opinions on it

Exact same thing, I just translated it into English.

I was just looking for some new throws yesterday and happened on this same article

What's your favorite Melee A Trois conflict in history?

Melee a Trois is when two or more factions are participating in a war or conflict. If you've played Dynasty Warriors, your allies would be blue, the main enemies would be red and rogue armies are yellow.

History is packed with armed conflicts and wars, so out of all of them, which one did you like that involved more than two factions?

I am aware. He's normally considered part of Romanticism, if i recall.

But, its hard to look at his later work and not see qualities that remind me of impressionism

I read somewhere that the kilt's modern resurgence was because of Walter Scott's historical narratives. They caused a sort of nostalgia for bygone days which led to people resurrecting such traditional memes

That’s how pickle recipe evolved